Names and Naming

People, Places, Perceptions and Power

Guy Puzey, Laura Kostanski, Guy Puzey, Laura Kostanski

• Publisher: Multilingual Matters
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781783094936
• Topic: Sprachen & Linguistik
• Subtopic: Soziolinguistik

This book explores international trends in naming and contributes to the growing field of onomastic enquiry. Naming practices are viewed here through a critical lens, demonstrating a high level of political and social engagement in relation to how we name people and places. The contributors to this publication examine why names are not only symbols of a person or place, but also manifestations of cultural, linguistic and social heritage in their own right. Presenting analyses of geographically and culturally diverse perspectives and case studies, the book investigates how names can represent deeper kinds of identity, act as objects of attachment and dependence, and reflect community mores and social customs while functioning as powerful mechanismsof inclusion and exclusion. The book will be of interest to researchers in onomastics, sociology, human geography, linguistics and history.

Part 1
The Varied Identities of People and Places

1	Internet Personal Naming Practices and Trends in Scholarly Approaches
	Katarzyna Aleksiejuk

Introduction

Personal naming on the Internet has so far received only modest interest in the field of name studies. Work in this field has presented general descriptions of this phenomenon and categorisations (Bechar-Israeli, 1995; Kołodziejczyk, 2004; Naruszewicz-Duchlińska, 2003; Rutkiewicz, 1999; Sidorova, 2006; Swennen, 2001; Van Langendonck, 2007). However, research on usernames, although still not sizeable, constitutes an important element of the study of computer-mediated communication (CMC) and Internet linguistics. I would like to offer an overview of the literature to date related to naming practices on the Internet that I find representative of an array of viewpoints and approaches applied in this field, to see how personal naming works online, and to demonstrate selected similarities between online and offline naming practices.

Internet Personal Naming Practices¹

In every culture, naming is an institutionalised or conventionalised practice. There are always more or less explicit regulations related to both the act of naming (e.g. when in the individual’s life it takes place, who is involved, how the names are selected) and the structure of the personal name (e.g. how many elements it consists of, what each of them refers to, how they differ for different groups of people), and in many societies names are required for official registration (Alford, 1988: 1; Vom Bruck & Bodenhorn, 2006: 2–3). Similarly, to become a member of a virtual environment, one needs to choose a name (username) and, in many cases, undergo a registration process. The username serves as a form of address and reference used by interlocutors as well as by operators in formal announcements (‘user … has entered the chat-room’, ‘user … has left’, ‘user … is inviting you to a private room’) and in warnings related to misbehaviour.

Although typically users select their names, usernames need not be self-selected or self-invented. It is common for official names or student and staff numbers to be used as default identifiers by institutions. Also, in unofficial communication participants may, for example, utilise their legal names or nicknames as usernames.

In its written form CMC enables the use of unpronounceable names (^_^, ???), visual effects (cLoNehEAd, m@d) and digits (me33, 123654) (Bechar-Israeli, 1995; Kołodziejczyk, 2004; Naruszewicz-Duchlin´ska, 2003). However, the choice of username is not completely unrestricted: typically, usernames must be unique, their length is limited and not all keyboard symbols are allowed. In some domains usernames cannot start with digits (Swennen, 2001: 19), while other domains use filters to block swear-words. Such policies on name creation may significantly affect the form of the name; for example, where the number of characters is severely restricted, users might apply ‘shortening’ strategies such as abbreviating or merging words, like whathell (what the hell) (Bechar-Israeli, 1995) or BlueAdept (Danet et al., 1997), both of which are used on Internet Relay Chat (IRC), where usernames may contain only up to nine characters. Elsewhere, usernames might be long and include decoration, like ***CO-LEADA OF THA GANGSTA BOYZ***, Snowboarder Boy Creator of the Hard Core Snowboarders, ~§~Prin(c)ess ºf the Night~§~ (Scheidt, 2001: 18–20). Moreover, in some environments usernames may be changed at any time. Again in IRC: ‘To choose a nick one must enter the following command: /nick “nickname”. Nicks can be changed at any time, even every few seconds, by repeating the same command’ (Bechar-Israeli, 1995). In others, enrolling with a new username requires re-registration (Stommel, 2007: 148).

Usernames are generally recognised by users to be the property of a user. When one username is shared by two or more users, typically the senior user is permitted to keep it (Bechar-Israeli, 1995). However, cases of impersonation (unauthorised adoption of somebody else’s username or pretending to be that person) have been recorded (Swennen, 2001: 20). Many services enable usernames to be protected by passwords so that only someone who knows the password can log on under a particular name. Some websites offer certified registration of usernames (e.g. http://nicknameregister.com and http://nick-name.ru). Official regulations vary between countries; for example, Polish law provides the same level of protection to usernames as is provided to personal names, pseudonyms and brands (Sa˛d Najwyz˙szy, 2008).

The Role of Usernames

Impressions generated by personal names have been compared to the impressions generated by appearance, including ‘grooming, clothing, accessories, etc.’ (Mehrabian, 1997: 19). A change of name can support a shift in a person’s identity or status (e.g. through marriage, parenthood or accomplishments) in the same way that a change in status can be conveyed by audiovisual means (e.g. clothing or even song) (Alford, 1988: 86).

On the Internet, where identities are mainly constructed linguistically, names play a particularly important role as a means of constructing identities, establishing one’s status and shaping relationships with other participants. Usernames do not just supplement, they substitute various bodily-facilitated manifestations of identity, and may be said to stand for virtual personae. In accordance with the theory of symbolic communication, the uniqueness of usernames reinforces their representational role:

Symbolic communication functions when we accept symbols (in whatever form: vocalized, written etc.) as representatives of their referents. A symbol will tend to have low representational capacity when it is used to represent several referents or when its use is unrestricted. A symbol will tend to have high representational capacity when its use is restricted to a single referent and a single context […]. (Alford, 1988: 116)

Bays (1998) proposes that usernames take on the role of a ‘face’. Based on Goffman’s (1959) notions of frame and face, Bays explains how cognitive structures of presence are constructed in CMC through strategies and conventions that can be compared to those used in offline interaction. Usernames as ‘face’ constitute ‘a symbolic locus for presence’ that makes communication possible; they also contribute to the success of communication, as they substitute to some extent audiovisual cues that generate a first impression. At the most basic level, ‘face’ online is maintained by ‘accepting and recognising other participants’ faces given in their nicknames’ (Bays, 1998).

Lev and Lewinsky (2004) also refer to Goffman’s (1959) theories of symbolic interaction and dramaturgical perspective. The first of these theories proposes that humans communicate on the basis of symbolic representations rather than actual properties or qualities, which explains the role of names as symbolic representations of interacting persons. Furthermore, people communicate by enacting certain roles in orientation to specific values, norms, conventions and so on that are meaningful for the interacting parties. Names, as elements of the performance, are ascribed a meaning and are scanned for information about the named person, which helps to outline a context which must be adhered to in order to act appropriately. Lev and Lewinsky have demonstrated that images based on usernames have influenced interlocutors’ reactions, including their decision to interact.

Those authors also compare the distribution of usernames with that in Bechar-Israeli’s (1995) study, where the highest proportion of usernames (45%) were found to describe participants’ personal features and only a small proportion were customary names. In contrast, the largest group of usernames (42.8%) in Lev and Lewinsky’s sample were ordinary names that were known offline. The choices made by other users were also rather traditional: the second largest group referred to various aspects of the person’s identity, and the third included names of animals and objects, while unconventional names were rare.

Usernames and Identity

The main function of naming is often believed to be identification. Identification expresses itself through two aspects: differentiation and categorisation. This function is common to all naming systems; however, the means and methods of identification are culturally specific and depend on how certain societies conceptualise identities (Alford, 1988: 69; Hagström, 2012: 83–85; Vom Bruck & Bodenhorn, 2006: 4). The studies discussed in this section demonstrate strategies of identity construction through usernames.

Although according to the study by Bechar-Israeli (1995) usernames tend to refer to individual rather than collective identities (e.g. national, ethnic or religious), research often focuses on their categorising function to demonstrate how participants substitute the ‘missing’ identity manifestations and often build standard, widely recognisable identities.

Del-Teso-Craviotto (2008) shows that in dating chat-rooms, usernames are primary linguistic means to claim, or validate, the participants’ identities as members of specific gender or sexual groups, which in this context is necessary to engage in interaction. Two aspects of naming were shown to be particularly important: authenticity and attractiveness. Firstly, ‘unstated chat-room etiquette’ required that identities indicated by participants were appropriate to the particular chat-room, especially in terms of age, gender and sexual orientation; in usernames, this was often realised by following the ‘age/sex/location’ format (e.g. TiO18Mad ‘guy 18 Madrid’, MsGaPeach35 ‘Ms Georgia Peach 35’). Breaking this rule was considered unacceptable. For example, when a user named Robshape (displaying a male identity through the username) entered a lesbian room, his contributions were rejected and he was directed to an appropriate location. Secondly, to encourage interaction, participants constructed attractive images of gendered bodies by referring to stereotypically feminine or masculine physical attributes or other widely recognisable sexual associations, as seen in examples like LVNVCowboy, TRUEblonde821, SoftNSweetLips, DarrellRooster5, TAMED SEX KITTEN, BadKitty040270, BIGBADBLUEDOG (Del-Teso-Craviotto, 2008: 255–259). As a result, presented identities were often schematic, with stereotypical connotations. For instance, RiCaN CuTeY refers to nationality (Puerto Rican) and physical appearance (cute), which, although not very specific, effectively communicates a shared image of an attractive Puerto Rican woman (Del-Teso-Craviotto, 2008: 265).

Androutsopoulos (2006) examined websites based in Germany for various diaspora groups in terms of language choice, analysing code-switching between home languages and German in conversations as well as language choice and semantics of usernames and message signatures. The analysis of usernames was limited to Persian and Greek data (2006: 527–528). Usernames were demonstrated to constitute a means of self-presentation but were not found to always provide a reliable confirmation of ethnicity. Semantically, usernames tended to display individual characteristics, such as appearance, personality or interests, rather than ethnicity. Very few users referred to their places of origin directly (e.g. Ellinas ‘Greek’, Tehrani). Slightly more referred to culture-related domains such as cuisine, football, mythology and religion. Some participants used English to refer to ethnicity, often combined with gender, as in Persian Girly, PersianLady, prince of Persia, sexy greekgirl, greekgod19 (Androutsopoulos, 2006: 539). The language choice reflected ethnicity more often, but, despite a general preference for home languages, around a third of participants selected other languages, outside the native versus German dichotomy. English was the second most popular option, followed by a mix of the home language with English or German (e.g. Persian Ramin4ever, or Turkish Zeynepchen, composed of the first name Zeynep ‘gem’ and the German diminutive suffix), Spanish (e.g. Chica, Cubalita, from the Greek forum) and globally recognisable appellations (e.g. Dolce e Gabanna, Kamasutra, Don Huan) (Androutsopoulos, 2006: 539).

Androutsopoulos (2006: 524–525) describes usernames as ‘acts of selfpresentation designed for and displayed to, rather than negotiated with, an audience’. They are fixed labels, in contrast to conversation, where the language is actively adjusted in current interactional situations. Usernames presented multicultural and multilingual identities, often going beyond ethnicity, for example by references to popular culture, as with FightClub (a Hollywood movie) or G-Style (a reference to gangsta rap) (Androutsopoulos, 2006: 539–541).

A strong connection between identities of sensitive group participants and their usernames has been observed by ...